SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Abbas Ansari – Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No.61 of 2025 in SLP(C) No.25151 of 2024
Decided On : 09-01-2025
ORDER
1. The instant application has been moved in furtherance of the order dated 21.10.2014 passed by this Court, in terms whereof SLP(C) Diary No.47206/2024 was disposed of after taking notice of the fact that the Writ Petition (C) No.661/2021 filed by the petitioner along with his brother (proforma respondent) was pending before the High Court and was ordered to be listed before a Division Bench along with other similar matters.
2. It was in this backdrop that we requested the Division Bench of the High Court to take up the application for interim stay moved by the petitioner and decide the same at the earliest and in any case on 04.11.2024 when the matter was listed.
3. The instant application has been moved, inter alia, alleging that after the order passed by this Court, the writ petition has been listed on several occasions, but no effective hearing has taken place. Consequently, no interim protection has been granted to the petitioner, though all other similarly situated writ petitioners have been protected against dispossession/demolition/fresh construction at the disputed site.
4. Since we have not issued notice and have also not obtained report from the Registry of the High Court, we are not inclined to express any opinion as to what were the circumstances and why the petitioner’s writ petition could not be taken up for hearing by the Bench, though it was listed from time to time.
5. Since the petitioner has specifically averred that the Authorities have commenced construction at Plot No.93 located in village Jiamau, Lucknow, which they claimed to be under their ownership and if third party rights are created, it is likely to cause irreversible loss to the petitioner(s).
6. We dispose of this miscellaneous application with a direction to the Authorities as well as the petitioner to maintain status quo at the site till the matter is heard by the High Court.
7. We are still hopeful that the matter shall be listed before the appropriate Bench of the High Court at the earliest.
8. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Registrar General/Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court, who in turn are directed to bring the order of this Court to the notice of the Bench where the matter is listed. The Division Bench may be apprised of the request made by us in paragraph 6 of our order dated 21.10.2024.
9. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining status quo at a disputed site to prevent irreversible loss until the High Court hears the matter.
A court's interim order to maintain status quo in a property dispute does not necessarily prohibit the parties from making necessary repairs or improvements to the property, provided that they do not....
The interests of justice will be served if the Petition itself is treated as representation by both the Village Panchayat and the Planning Authority, and the authorities were directed to dispose of s....
Courts cannot modify final orders unless correcting clerical errors; otherwise, such applications are seen as an abuse of the legal process.
The court emphasized the necessity of enforcing interim orders and provided guidance on using police assistance for compliance in cases of ongoing violations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.